DEFEND / AI SECURITY CANADA
AI Security Canada Operators Engineer In, Not Bolt On
No automated red-team platform that hides findings behind a dashboard. No incident response retainer that scopes prompt injection out. No monthly monitoring product that ships dashboards instead of action items. Vanwebdev LTD designs and operates the AI security Canada layer as a named engagement. Specifically, every red-team finding ships with the prompt sequence that triggered it. Furthermore, the 4-hour incident SLA applies to every retainer client from day one of activation.
The AI Security Canada Defence Gap
Canadian operators buying AI security Canada services inherit a structural problem. Specifically, prompt injection, indirect injection via retrieval context, agentic tool-call abuse, and multi-turn manipulation are novel attack categories. In fact, classical penetration testing was designed for deterministic surfaces. AI inference behaviour shifts with each prompt context. Therefore, methods built for static codebases miss failure modes that surface only under adversarial conditions. That gap is structural, not a configuration oversight.
Vanwebdev LTD does not resell a red-team SaaS. However, we run four named defensive engagements: AI Red Teaming, Runtime Prompt Defence, Continuous Monitoring Retainer, and Incident Response Retainer. Notably, each engagement ships reproducible findings and a named artifact your security team can cite in a regulatory review. Similarly, every retainer carries a 4-hour incident SLA, with monitoring briefs delivered monthly as action items rather than dashboards. Furthermore, this discipline aligns to ITSG-33 control families and PIPEDA s.4.7 by default. See the PIPEDA reference at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada for the privacy boundary the runtime defence layer enforces.
WHAT WE DEFEND
AI Security Canada: Four Named Engagements, Every Finding Reproducible.
AI Red Teaming
Adversarial prompt testing against your production inference system, covering prompt injection, indirect injection via retrieval context, jailbreaks, data exfiltration paths, tool-call abuse, and multi-turn manipulation chains. Notably, every finding ships with the exact prompt sequence that triggered it, so your engineering team can reproduce the failure mode independently. Engagement: $5,000 to $15,000.
Runtime Prompt Defence
Design and deployment of a prompt-validation layer inside your inference pipeline, with input classification, output filtering, and policy enforcement built into your stack. Specifically, we implement the policy logic in your codebase rather than reselling Lakera Guard or NeMo Guardrails, because the policy boundary belongs in your repository and not behind a vendor API. Implementation: $4,000 to $10,000. Optional review retainer: $800/month.
Continuous Monitoring Retainer
Monthly review of AI system logs, prompt anomaly detection, model output drift analysis, and dependency vulnerability tracking, delivered as a named monthly briefing with action items rather than a dashboard you have to interpret. Therefore, your security team starts each month with a written brief, not a chart that requires further investigation to be useful. Monthly retainer: $1,500 to $4,000.
Incident Response Retainer
On-call engagement for AI-specific incidents, specifically prompt injection exploits, model poisoning events, data exfiltration via LLM output, and agentic system failures. Furthermore, the 4-hour SLA applies from the moment a retainer client opens a ticket, and a post-incident report ships within five business days of containment. Quarterly retainer: $3,000 to $6,000.
AI Security Canada Methodology: Map, Probe, Harden, Patrol
01
Map
One-week mapping phase. We enumerate inference surfaces, agent topology, retrieval context sources, and tool-call permissions before writing a single adversarial prompt. The Map output is a named scoping document your team reviews and signs off on before the Probe phase begins. Notably, the same scoping discipline applies to a $5,000 red-team engagement and a $15,000 multi-agent assessment.
02
Probe
Two to four weeks for the Probe phase, depending on the complexity of your stack and the depth of agent topology under test. Adversarial prompt sequences run against the surfaces identified during Map, with findings recorded as reproducible exploit sequences rather than summary descriptions. Specifically, every finding ships with the trigger sequence, severity rating, and exploitation path, so your engineering team can reproduce the failure mode without further support from us.
03
Harden
Harden runs alongside Probe wherever the customer permits concurrent remediation. We implement the policy logic directly in your codebase: prompt validation rules, output filters, agent permission scoping, tool-call sandboxing, and retrieval-context sanitisation. As a result, the hardened configuration is documented in the engagement manifest and reproducible by your team without returning to Vanwebdev LTD for a second engagement.
04
Patrol
Patrol activates after Harden. The Continuous Monitoring Retainer reviews logs monthly and ships a named briefing with action items, not a dashboard. Furthermore, retainer clients hold the Incident Response slot, which carries a 4-hour SLA from the moment a ticket opens. Additionally, Patrol findings feed back into the next Probe cycle, so the methodology sharpens with each engagement rather than remaining static between releases.
Aligned to ITSG-33 IT Security Risk Management (Canadian Centre for Cyber Security). Also see the Build pillar for the construction-layer methodology this defensive loop pairs with.
VANWEBDEV LTD 2026 SOVEREIGN AI READINESS REPORT
Reproducible Findings. Named Briefings. Every Engagement.
Every red-team finding ships with the prompt sequence that triggered it. Similarly, the 4-hour incident SLA applies to every retainer client from day one of activation. Furthermore, every monthly monitoring brief lands as a named artifact with action items rather than a dashboard your team has to interpret. These are design defaults, not premium upgrades.
Vanwebdev LTD, 2026 Sovereign AI Readiness Report. Methodology published at vanwebdev.ca/research/methodology/.
Frequently asked questions about AI security Canada
Lakera Guard and NeMo Guardrails are runtime SaaS products. Vanwebdev LTD does not resell them. Specifically, the Runtime Prompt Defence engagement implements the policy logic directly in your codebase, so the boundary lives in your repository and the change history is yours to audit. Therefore, the policy stays in your environment when the vendor changes terms, deprecates an endpoint, or alters the pricing model. Furthermore, the implementation is documented in the engagement manifest, with the same ITSG-33 alignment notes the Build trunk ships.
Automated AI security platforms run pre-built attack catalogues and score your system against them. However, the failure modes that matter for an operator are stack-specific: the agent topology, the retrieval context shape, the tool-call permission set. In fact, the Vanwebdev AI Red Teaming engagement designs adversarial prompts against your specific surfaces, and every finding ships with the exact trigger sequence so your engineering team can reproduce the exploit without a vendor portal. Notably, this reproducibility is the difference between a finding your team can patch and a finding your team has to escalate.
Every defensive engagement aligns to ITSG-33 control families and PIPEDA s.4.7 data-minimisation by default. Specifically, engagements involving federally regulated financial institutions reference OSFI B-13 Technology and Cyber Risk Management. Bill C-27 AIDA provisions are noted where the system performs automated decision-making. Furthermore, designated operators of critical cyber systems under Bill C-26 receive a separate alignment note covering the Cyber Security Programme requirements. Notably, these citations appear in the engagement manifest as named references, not as general claims.
AI-specific incidents covered under the Incident Response Retainer include prompt injection exploits, model poisoning events, data exfiltration via LLM output, agentic system failures, and unauthorised tool-call sequences. However, the retainer does not cover general endpoint compromise or network-layer incidents, which fall under your existing IR provider. Furthermore, the 4-hour SLA applies from the moment a retainer client opens a ticket, and the post-incident report ships within five business days of containment, with an updated threat model attached.
A SIEM alerting product surfaces signals from network logs, endpoint telemetry, and identity events, and most products require a security analyst on the receiving end to triage the alert volume. Conversely, the Continuous Monitoring Retainer reviews AI-specific telemetry, specifically prompt anomalies, model output drift, retrieval context tampering, and dependency vulnerabilities. Notably, the deliverable is a named monthly briefing with action items rather than an alert stream, so your security team starts the month with a written plan and not a backlog of pings to investigate.
GET A SCOPING CALL
Book a Scoping Call. No Sales Motion.
Bring your inference stack details, your agent topology, and your hardest defensive constraint. We scope the engagement, name the deliverable, and provide a price range in one 45-minute call. No commitment required. Sub-$5,000 engagements proceed through the self-serve scoping wizard at /scope/ without a call.
Prefer the self-serve route? Use the scoping wizard at /scope/ for sub-$5,000 engagements. Or explore the Build pillar if you do not yet have infrastructure to defend.